Norwich — In response to ethics complaints, an attorney for three Norwich Public Utilities officials defended their participation in a May trip to the Kentucky Derby, saying the trip was part of their compensation as members of the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative and allowed under state law.

An attorney for Mayor Deberey Hinchey said she was an invited guest of NPU General Manager John Bilda, and was not invited because she was the mayor. Bilda told Hinchey the trip had no connections with the city or the NPU Board of Public Utilities Commissioners.

In the response to two ethics complaints, attorney Jeffrey Londregan also relayed that Hinchey raised concerns about potential complaints about the trip by a political adversary, and Bilda assured her the trip “had nothing to do with funds from NPU or City of Norwich taxes.”

Attorney Paul McCary, representing Bilda and NPU commission members Dee Boisclair and Robert Groner, filed lengthy responses to the ethics complaints involving the three NPU officials. McCary called for dismissal of all three complaints, arguing that the Kentucky Derby trips should be considered part of their compensation as CMEEC board members, rather than their direct connections with the city-owned NPU. The Norwich Code of Ethics would not apply to the regional cooperative.

CMEEC, owned by six municipally owned utilities in the state, has hosted trips to the Kentucky Derby for the past four years for dozens of board members, staff and guests. The 2016 trip cost $342,330 for 44 participants. Over the four years, CMEEC has spent a total of $1.02 million on the trips that involved no business meetings, conferences or workshops.

The Norwich Ethics Commission voted Monday to schedule probable cause hearings in two complaints against Hinchey and complaints against Bilda, Boisclair and Groner. The vote ended the confidentiality required of complaints, and made all documents in the cases public record.

But in response to the complaint filed against Hinchey by resident Jon Oldfield, Londregan argued that the complaint should be dismissed because Oldfield violated the initial confidentiality of ethics complaints by making it known to others, including Alderwoman Joanne Philbrick, that he had filed the complaint. Londregan argued that the complaint was “compromised” by the disclosure.

Oldfield also filed complaints against Groner and Boisclair, while resident Philip Brose filed complaints against Hinchey and Bilda.

Londregan also argued in the complaints against Hinchey that the derby trip did not violate the “gifts and favors” section of the city Ethics Code cited, because the provision deals with entities that have business, directly or indirectly, with the city.

Londregan argued: “The intent of the section is to prevent third-party vendors or businesses from offering gifts to city officials in order to gain an advantage or 'upper hand' in negotiations with the city in future potential business dealings.” He asserted that CMEEC is not a “third-party vendor” because the cooperative is partly owned by the city utility and “the city cannot have a 'business dealing' with itself,” Londregan wrote.

McCary filed similar responses on behalf of his three clients, claiming that as a member of CMEEC, Norwich Public Utilities is obligated through long-term contracts to purchase power from the cooperative, and thus the trip could not be interpreted to be a gift for business advantage.

“All of CMEEC's net revenues are shared by member utilities,” McCary wrote in Bilda's defense. “CMEEC cannot gain by doing favors for the member utilities which own and govern CMEEC.”

McCary also repeatedly said the trip was not provided to Bilda, Boisclair or Groner because of their affiliation with NPU, but rather because they are members of the CMEEC board of directors. All directors have been invited to the trip for the past four years and were allowed to bring guests.

McCary stressed in all three ethics complaint responses that the state statute that allowed for the creation of CMEEC also allowed for board members to be compensated for their responsibilities to review and analyze complex issues involving volatile electric power markets and pricing. The trips, he argued, were part of that compensation.

“Placed in this context, it is clear that the trip was not a gift,” McCary argued. “It was part of the overall relationship of CMEEC and its board. It was a board development exercise to build stronger relationships with their board peers, which are a diverse group spanning a large geographical area.”

McCary argued that the alleged excessive spending involved in the trips was a “business judgment” rather than an ethics question. He wrote that any CMEEC spending, if avoided, could be said to reduce member utility rates.

“Whether CMEEC spends too much or too little on staff salaries, information technology, or, as in this case, board development activities, are all questions of business judgment. They are not questions of ethics.”

McCary also used the public controversy and complaints that CMEEC retreats should be held within Connecticut and with much lower budgets as part of his argument that the trips were not gifts.

If the trips were truly “a gift,” McCary argued, then no amount of spending or any location for the retreats would be allowed.

“The absurdity of that result demonstrates that the trip is not a gift,” McCary argued.

c.bessette@theday.com